It scares me that there are people listening to this nonsense and taking it as a realistic interpretation of any of the drills shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pv_SpzJco&feature=related
The worst part of it all, why would you advocate NOT attacking someone’s centre and penetrating with the taan sau??
That plus the “wrist to wrist” fascination this guy seems to have makes no sense. The “Vertical taan” is exactly what you want to force is it not, because if its vertical, it’s collapsed and no threat what so ever.
forget wrists…
tan is a punch …elbow spreads as the fist hits
jum is a punch…elbow inwards as the fist hits
each arm is tan/jum energy that faces the target so each arm can cycle to attack.
each cycles in chi-sao strike..bong…strike..fok , striking…not attacking center gibberish 
drilling striking and elbows with stances to back them up. simple.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1017537]forget wrists…
tan is a punch …elbow spreads as the fist hits
jum is a punch…elbow inwards as the fist hits
each arm is tan/jum energy that faces the target so each arm can cycle to attack.
each cycles in chi-sao strike..bong…strike..fok , striking…not attacking center gibberish drilling striking and elbows with stances to back them up. simple.[/QUOTE]
That’s why my head hurts.
I am embarrassed for this man, that he thinks he’s putting out good information for people. I have a long way to go, and much still to learn, but this stuff violates every idea I’ve been shown.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017540]That’s why my head hurts.
I am embarrassed for this man, that he thinks he’s putting out good information for people. I have a long way to go, and much still to learn, but this stuff violates every idea I’ve been shown.[/QUOTE]
I agree that I don’t agree with most of what Tom says… I have talked with him and explained my position but he is adamant in what he does..
I agree about LukSao starts wrist to wrist, and that ideally you don’t want the hands to be too far apart from each other, the rest of it is a wash..
I don’t even know where he comes up with some of his stuff.. I learned from the same sources and yet much of what he does is just totally different from what I know.
using wrists is sin # 1 to get rid of. its in bil gee for a reason, wrist movement is a last resort.
dan chi-sao is at wrist contact distances becase we can strike without contacting each others body/faces as we introduce the idea of single strikes with dual force ..in 2 stages..later one punch.
<left elbow^right elbow>= tan sao
>left elbow^right elbow< = jum sao
with strike along centerline ^…linear strike with <tan<jum or jum>tan> ..each energy attacks the same direction to your flanking attack…>> or << cycling one after the other…facing makes the energy required shift to the inside /outside of the arms seamlessly. Energy shifts not the arms. The tan doesnt leave the centerline, nor does jum…:eek:
once the idea that the dan chi in 2 stages is redundant , and only a stage to pass through to develop striking techniques…you wont use a wrist again becasue you will see it will defeat your fighting development. You will end up doing controlling , clinching, jamming stuff, becasue you dont have the technical ability to simply strike and use angled arms to parry lines of force with a SIMULTANEOUS striking arm that deflects.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1017562]using wrists is sin # 1 to get rid of. its in bil gee for a reason, wrist movement is a last resort.
[/QUOTE]
We’ve been down this road before..
We don’t “USE WRISTS”… However, wrist to wrist contact is standard luksao positioning and it’s how the drill was done by Yip and all his students..moreover it’s how 99.99% of all luksao is done as seen on any vid on the net..with varying small degrees of variation.
When Phillip does LukSao it’s the same positioning.
“Wristing” or applying force from the wrist is different and normally not correct..
[QUOTE=YungChun;1017564]We’ve been down this road before..
We don’t “USE WRISTS”… However, wrist to wrist contact is standard luksao positioning and it’s how the drill was done by Yip and all his students..moreover it’s how 99.99% of all luksao is done as seen on any vid on the net..with varying small degrees of variation.
When Phillip does LukSao it’s the same positioning.
“Wristing” or applying force from the wrist is different and normally not correct..[/QUOTE]
not wrist to wrist
[QUOTE=YungChun;1017564]We’ve been down this road before..
We don’t “USE WRISTS”… However, wrist to wrist contact is standard luksao positioning and it’s how the drill was done by Yip and all his students..moreover it’s how 99.99% of all luksao is done as seen on any vid on the net..with varying small degrees of variation.
When Phillip does LukSao it’s the same positioning.
“Wristing” or applying force from the wrist is different and normally not correct..[/QUOTE]
To many WCers are losing fights to use consensus as a talking point against another practitioners unique way of doing something.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017573]To many WCers are losing fights to use consensus as a talking point against another practitioners unique way of doing something.[/QUOTE]
No idea what this means.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1017568]not wrist to wrist :D[/QUOTE]
Show any clip of luksao you like where it’s not..
Whatever you want to call it–this is the correct starting position for LukSao in Yip Man Wing Chun.
Most folks refer to this as W2W…if others call it something else great…
[QUOTE=YungChun;1017580]Show any clip of luksao you like where it’s not..
Whatever you want to call it–this is the correct starting position for LukSao in Yip Man Wing Chun.
Most folks refer to this as W2W…if others call it something else great…[/QUOTE]
Calling it wrist to wrist is nonsense.
It implies that that is the only point of contact to be made and that one should endeavour to keep the contact only at that point.
A better description is that the is simply the position which results from equal, forward force in both arms being driven by the elbow, through the centre. If there is no resistance met, the man gets a punch in the head.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017582]
It implies that that is the only point of contact to be made and that one should endeavour to keep the contact only at that point.
[/quote]
Quite true for LukSao assuming you know what that is.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017582]
Calling it wrist to wrist is nonsense.
[/quote]
No, this is nonsense:
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017582]
A better description is that the is simply the position which results from equal, forward force in both arms being driven by the elbow, through the centre.[/QUOTE]
There is no implication save that which you made up in your head. The standard LukSao represents a particular positioning as seen in the picture.. You can’t have correct LukSao without correct positioning..
Telling students to assume the position: “where the position which results from equal, forward force in both arms being driven by the elbow, through the centre.” would leave anyone familiar with the English language completely lost.
Your description in no way indicates the correct contact point for luksao.. One can apply any kind of force from many different positions.. and you’d still need to tell folks where the starting (neutral positions) are for the drill..
It appears quite clear to me that they are starting in the traditional wrist to wrist positions in LukSao. And in any case this is the term that everyone in my family and I would guess many other families taught by Yip use which refers to the contact point on the arm..
What part of the arms are in contact?
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017533]It scares me that there are people listening to this nonsense and taking it as a realistic interpretation of any of the drills shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pv_SpzJco&feature=related
The worst part of it all, why would you advocate NOT attacking someone’s centre and penetrating with the taan sau??
That plus the “wrist to wrist” fascination this guy seems to have makes no sense. The “Vertical taan” is exactly what you want to force is it not, because if its vertical, it’s collapsed and no threat what so ever.[/QUOTE]
I think that he was just implying that the shell of the drill does not involve wedging in with the tan sao. I don’t think that he was suggesting that wedging is never appropriate. Ultimately, chi sao is probably the worst way that a WCer can spend his time so I don’t think that it is worth worrying about.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017587]I think that he was just implying that the shell of the drill does not involve wedging in with the tan sao. I don’t think that he was suggesting that wedging is never appropriate. Ultimately, chi sao is probably the worst way that a WCer can spend his time so I don’t think that it is worth worrying about.[/QUOTE]
You’re wrong about the chi sao barb you added. Not realising what you are doing in chi sao can make the drill unrealistic and ineffective. There is a major difference between doing chi sao properly, and giving less than lip service to the drill by saying it is only a sensitivity drill which results in the endless playing of patty cake like games.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1017585]Quite true for LukSao assuming you know what that is.
No, this is nonsense:
There is no implication save that which you made up in your head. The standard LukSao represents a particular positioning as seen in the picture.. You can’t have correct LukSao without correct positioning..
Telling students to assume the position: “where the position which results from equal, forward force in both arms being driven by the elbow, through the centre.” would leave anyone familiar with the English language completely lost.
Your description in no way indicates the correct contact point for luksao.. One can apply any kind of force from many different positions.. and you’d still need to tell folks where the starting (neutral positions) are for the drill..
It appears quite clear to me that they are starting in the traditional wrist to wrist positions in LukSao. And in any case this is the term that everyone in my family and I would guess many other families taught by Yip use which refers to the contact point on the arm..
What part of the arms are in contact?[/QUOTE]
I have heard it referred to as poon sau, but never luk sau. But at the end of the day, terminology is unimportant. It is the actions themselves which are the important aspect, not what names we choose to give them.
Given that the wrist is the joint alone which is maybe 3cm long and neither the hand above nor the forearm below is the wrist, to define something as wrist to wrist is quite stupid. The forearms are in contact. Calling it wrist to wrist adds the implication that it is the wrist which is important, and not the driving elbow behind it.
We are taught that the whole point of the drill is to wedge the taan sau in, every single time you transition through these positions, without the leaning shown in every roll in this clip. Thus, not only are you seeking to penetrate and strike at every opportunity, you also train your partner to drive the fuk sau through the centre every single time bettering their own defence and strength of stance.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017587]I think that he was just implying that the shell of the drill does not involve wedging in with the tan sao.
I don’t think that he was suggesting that wedging is never appropriate.
[/quote]
No, I spoke numerous times with him on this besides you’re missing the inconsistency: He has forward pressure on the fook but NOT on the Tan..
Any way you slice it, it’s wrong.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017587]
Ultimately, chi sao is probably the worst way that a WCer can spend his time so I don’t think that it is worth worrying about.
[/QUOTE]
ChiSao in his case proably represents 90% of the training.. Given that–if it’s wrong then it’s quite the problem, and his problems don’t end with the ones seen here.
ChiSao (done correctly) is vital to training the vast majority of the techniques.. If you think it’s the worst way to spend time then I already know you’ve missed out on any benefit one might gain from good ChiSao training..
Forget that, Here watch the real master fix your Bong sao with correct energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWggfQrN-lQ&feature=related
Watch his other video clips on the right side of this web page on youtube. He has some of THE best and proper hand positions. Aslo, Tsui Sheung Tin is one of the very 1st 4 orignal students of Ip Man.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017533]It scares me that there are people listening to this nonsense and taking it as a realistic interpretation of any of the drills shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pv_SpzJco&feature=related
The worst part of it all, why would you advocate NOT attacking someone’s centre and penetrating with the taan sau??
That plus the “wrist to wrist” fascination this guy seems to have makes no sense. The “Vertical taan” is exactly what you want to force is it not, because if its vertical, it’s collapsed and no threat what so ever.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017588]You’re wrong about the chi sao barb you added. Not realising what you are doing in chi sao can make the drill unrealistic and ineffective. There is a major difference between doing chi sao properly, and giving less than lip service to the drill by saying it is only a sensitivity drill which results in the endless playing of patty cake like games.[/QUOTE]
Chi sao as typically practiced gives people the impression that they can do things in a fight that just don’t work. Chi sao is an exercise in chasing hands as it encourages a 1:1 block for every attack. Finally, people adjust their postures and habits to be better at chi sao. Adjustments that improve chi sao do not translate to fighting.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017589]
Given that the wrist is the joint alone which is maybe 3cm long and neither the hand above nor the forearm below is the wrist, to define something as wrist to wrist is quite stupid.
[/quote]
I think your responses are stupid.
The forearm is a long bone and does not specify a specific location or THE correct one.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017589]
The forearms are in contact.
[/quote]
No, the wrist sections are in contact when done 100% correctly.. Beyond that when you move past the wrist you already lost a good deal of positioning.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017589]
Calling it wrist to wrist adds the implication that it is the wrist which is important, and not the driving elbow behind it.
[/quote]
Your logic circuits are broken.. Contact point has nothing to do, implied or otherwise to what kind of energy, the vector to be used and what to do with it.. suggesting that it does tells me you can’t think clearly.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017589]
We are taught that the whole point of the drill is to wedge the taan sau in, every single time you transition through these positions, without the leaning shown in every roll in this clip. Thus, not only are you seeking to penetrate and strike at every opportunity, you also train your partner to drive the fuk sau through the centre every single time bettering their own defence and strength of stance.[/QUOTE]
That’s a nice theory…
[QUOTE=YungChun;1017590]No, I spoke numerous times with him on this besides you’re missing the inconsistency: He has forward pressure on the fook but NOT on the Tan..
Any way you slice it, it’s wrong.
ChiSao in his case proably represents 90% of the training.. Given that–if it’s wrong then it’s quite the problem, and his problems don’t end with the ones seen here.
ChiSao (done correctly) is vital to training the vast majority of the techniques.. If you think it’s the worst way to spend time then I already know you’ve missed out on any benefit one might gain from good ChiSao training..[/QUOTE]
If chi sao represents 90% of someone’s training then there is no hope for that person whether the chi sao is correct or not.